2008 (4) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l to denial of SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2005-C.E. up to 28-2-2006 and the same Notification as amended with effect from 1-3-2006. The case of the Revenue as accepted in the impugned order is that the appellants were not entitled to SSI benefit during the period from Apr. 2003 to Nov. 2006 on the ground that their aggregate value of clearances in terms of para 3A of the Notification for the previous years (with reference to the fiscal years relating to the demand of duty) exceeded Rs. 3 crores in respect of the demand period ending 28-2-2006 and had exceeded Rs. 4 crores in relation to the demand period from 1-3-2006. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that, under para 3A of the Notification as they understood, the cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y learned counsel that a major part of the impugned demand is barred by limitation. According to him, the larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is not invocable in this case. The reason stated by learned counsel is that the assessee had believed bona fide that the leaflets and printed books (cleared at 'nil' rate of duty) were to be excluded from the aggregate value of clearances for a 'previous year' under para 3A of the Notification for the purpose of determining SSI eligibility for the 'current year.' It is also stated that the extended period of limitation was not to be invoked for the mere reason that the assessee had not taken due registration from the department. According to learned counsel, it was ....